5 ms·
If the text completion algorithm is sufficiently advanced enough then we wouldn't be able to tell it's not AGI, especially if it has access to state-of-the-art
by ssnistfajen 3y ago
If the text completion algorithm is sufficiently advanced enough then we wouldn't be able to tell it's not AGI, especially if it has access to state-of-the-art research and can modify its own code/weights. I don't think we are there yet but it's plausible to an extent.
- mvdtnz 3y agoNo. This is modern day mysticism. You're just waving your hands and making fuzzy claims about "but what if it was an even better algorithm".
- ssnistfajen 3y agolol
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- calf 3y agoYou're correct about their error; however, Hinton views that a sufficiently scaled up autocompletion would be forced, in a loose mathematical sense, to understand things logically and analytically, because the only way approach 0 error rate on the output is to actually learn the problem and not imitate the answer. It's an interesting issue and there are different views on this.
- mcv 3y agoAny self-learning system can change its own weights. That's the entire point. And a text-processing system like ChatGPT may well have access to state-of-the-art research. The combination of those two things does not imply that it can improve itself to become secretly AGI. Not even if the text-completion algorithm was even more advanced. For one thing, it still lacks independent thought. It's only responding to inputs. It doesn't reason about its own reasoning. It's questionable whether it's reasoning at all. I personally think a far more fundamental change is necessary to reach AGI.